5/30 ruling against Trump

[GMDino]

(05-31-2024, 09:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're certainly doing everything you can to avoid the actual substance of the points being made.  As explained, everything was not done above board, whether there is an appeals process or not.  My bad if I'm actually concerned about the future of the country.

I just assumed you'd be more concerned with actual law and order.

It's not even the first case he's lost in the last year.

I'm concerned about the future of the country too.  

Not because he lost a trial where he had every right given to any one of us...but because Trump would be horrible for it.  But he can still run for office even as a convicted felon.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(05-31-2024, 08:04 PM)samhain Wrote: If it indeed is, then how on earth could and actual ex-president's defense team overlook such an obvious disqualifier?  They could have delayed the case and asked for another judge long before the day after the verdict.  

Either they knew it and it will amount to nothing (likely), or they are just the typical incompentent central casting losers that tend to work for Trump (also, not impossible, I must admit).

Makes for a great appeal case though.

And congrats, the R's are officially united now.

[GMDino]

(05-31-2024, 10:19 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Makes for a great appeal case though.

And congrats, the R's are officially united now.

You mean al it took for the RINOs and never-Trumpers was to have him be convicted?

Heck they should have been united months ago.

[Belsnickel]

(05-31-2024, 04:16 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: An interesting article from a former federal prosecutor.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-was-convicted-but-prosecutors-contorted-the-law.html


The following are all undeniable facts.

The judge donated money — a tiny amount, $35, but in plain violation of a rule prohibiting New York judges from making political donations of any kind — to a pro-Biden, anti-Trump political operation, including funds that the judge earmarked for “resisting the Republican Party and Donald Trump’s radical right-wing legacy.” Would folks have been just fine with the judge staying on the case if he had donated a couple bucks to “Re-elect Donald Trump, MAGA forever!”? Absolutely not.

District Attorney Alvin Bragg ran for office in an overwhelmingly Democratic county by touting his Trump-hunting prowess. He bizarrely (and falsely) boasted on the campaign trail, “It is a fact that I have sued Trump over 100 times.” (Disclosure: Both Bragg and Trump’s lead counsel, Todd Blanche, are friends and former colleagues of mine at the Southern District of New York.)

Most importantly, the DA’s charges against Trump push the outer boundaries of the law and due process. That’s not on the jury. That’s on the prosecutors who chose to bring the case and the judge who let it play out as it did.

The district attorney’s press office and its flaks often proclaim that falsification of business records charges are “commonplace” and, indeed, the office’s “bread and butter.” That’s true only if you draw definitional lines so broad as to render them meaningless. Of course the DA charges falsification quite frequently; virtually any fraud case involves some sort of fake documentation.

But when you impose meaningful search parameters, the truth emerges: The charges against Trump are obscure, and nearly entirely unprecedented. In fact, no state prosecutor — in New York, or Wyoming, or anywhere — has ever charged federal election laws as a direct or predicate state crime, against anyone, for anything. None. Ever. Even putting aside the specifics of election law, the Manhattan DA itself almost never brings any case in which falsification of business records is the only charge.

Standing alone, falsification charges would have been mere misdemeanors under New York law, which posed two problems for the DA. First, nobody cares about a misdemeanor, and it would be laughable to bring the first-ever charge against a former president for a trifling offense that falls within the same technical criminal classification as shoplifting a Snapple and a bag of Cheetos from a bodega. Second, the statute of limitations on a misdemeanor — two years — likely has long expired on Trump’s conduct, which dates to 2016 and 2017.

So, to inflate the charges up to the lowest-level felony (Class E, on a scale of Class A through E) — and to electroshock them back to life within the longer felony statute of limitations — the DA alleged that the falsification of business records was committed “with intent to commit another crime.” Here, according to prosecutors, the “another crime” is a New York State election-law violation, which in turn incorporates three separate “unlawful means”: federal campaign crimes, tax crimes, and falsification of still more documents. Inexcusably, the DA refused to specify what those unlawful means actually were — and the judge declined to force them to pony up — until right before closing arguments. So much for the constitutional obligation to provide notice to the defendant of the accusations against him in advance of trial. (This, folks, is what indictments are for.)

In these key respects, the charges against Trump aren’t just unusual. They’re bespoke, seemingly crafted individually for the former president and nobody else.

I think the underlined sections are of particular importance.

I don't think it is as important as you do, and I also think Elie is wrong. So, in order for the charges to be upped to felonies, there must be the intent to conceal or further another crime. The prosecution's case included evidence that they were done with the intent to conceal or further three other potential crimes: election finance violations, tax fraud, and/or falsifying other business records. Trump was not being charged with any of those crimes, was never indicted for them, and so it wasn't required to be fully fleshed out. That's how the law is written in New York.

Now, is there a potential that the law itself is scrutinized? Quite possibly, but the way the trial was conducted was based on the law as written.

(05-31-2024, 06:13 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: Always good to open with an insult.

It's only an insult because you want it to be. The word itself is not inherently insulting.

(05-31-2024, 06:13 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: I am curious as to those statistics.

Is that 75-80& of current DJT supporters?

Independents?

The total voter block?

Total voter block.

(05-31-2024, 06:13 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: If the total voter block, I would submit that the 20-25% may be democrat voters.

That would be illogical. Democrat voters aren't going to change their vote based on Trump being found guilty of a felony because they already weren't voting for him. Also, when broken down, roughly 25% of Trump voters said they would reconsider their vote if he were found guilty of a felony. The percentage was higher among independents. Of course, again, Democrats wouldn't really be changing because they already weren't voting for him.

(05-31-2024, 06:19 PM)FormerlyBengalRugby Wrote: I would guess the Stormy Daniels testimony, potentially the odd jury instructions (55 pages and the jurors cannot have a copy, but must  sit through a reading)., there were a lot of odd moving parts.

Changing the law so DJT could be prosecuted, up-charging a misdemeanor to a felony, from a DA who often does the reverse, campaigning on going after DJT, just to name a few.

Not saying those are grounds for anything, but it doesn't smell good and sometimes where there's smoke, there is fire.

Out of everything you listed, only the Stormy Daniels testimony would be something I would see as a leverage point. Though Trump's team opened the door for it and did not object in the moment, which makes it difficult to appeal on it down the road.

There wasn't actually anything off about the jury instructions, as much as some in the media are making it seem. The law wasn't changed so he could be charged and up-charging is a part of the law he was charged with.

[Luvnit2]

I have. not read entire thread, but couple of reasons why Trump wins on appeal.
1. Judge is conflicted,against NY law for a judge to donate to Biden.
2. Crimes were not identified by prosecution upfront and judge allowed it (see #1)
3. Judge our nit allow defense to present expert witnesss on election fraud with no limitations. (See #1)
4. Judge failed to give fair jury instructions (see #1)

CNN legal experts are saying bogus conviction.

My last point, 2 things to know after conviction, Trump raised 49 million dollars in less than 24 hours and WAIT FOR IT,TRUMP WENT UP 6 points in 1sr poll after conviction.

[NATI BENGALS]

(05-31-2024, 09:07 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're certainly doing everything you can to avoid the actual substance of the points being made.  As explained, everything was not done above board, whether there is an appeals process or not.  My bad if I'm actually concerned about the future of the country.

Ah yes. If republicans and right wing media can not jam a convicted felon down the throats of America and make him POTUS, in a country that rejected him when he lost the popular vote the last two times, for some reason the future of the country is in danger.

Republican logic is in shambles.

I’m flabbergasted. Maybe hitch your wagon to anybody that isn’t a giant scumbag with more character red flags than Pac-Man jones.

I’m going to shoot myself in the foot and then race in a marathon. When I lose I’ll blame the rigged system and Biden.

[samhain]

(05-31-2024, 10:19 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Makes for a great appeal case though.

And congrats, the R's are officially united now.

That's funny.  Most of the remaining party has done nothing but lick Trumps scrotum since 2016.  Oooh.  Now they're super-Trumpy.

Yeah right.  

Not enough people with spines in that party to do anything but lick boots and fall in line.  Absolutely nothing has changed with this verdict.

[Luvnit2]

The same liberals applauding justice in Trump case are attempting to demean the biggest court in the land.

Liberals show their biased cards against Supreme Court, but dismiss a political prosecution led by a DA who promised before he had a crime he would get Trump, a liberal judge who donated money to Biden and has a daughter who gets major donations for Democrats in a portion of NYC with a jury pool 92% liberal.

Please be consistent, if this is overturned on appeal by lower courts or SC, Trump would not be a felon.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-01-2024, 12:39 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Ah yes. If republicans and right wing media can not jam a convicted felon down the throats of America and make him POTUS, in a country that rejected him when he lost the popular vote the last two times, for some reason the future of the country is in danger.

Republican logic is in shambles.

I’m flabbergasted. Maybe hitch your wagon to anybody that isn’t a giant scumbag with more character red flags than Pac-Man jones.

I’m going to shoot myself in the foot and then race in a marathon. When I lose I’ll blame the rigged system and Biden.

You making Karen's look like nice people

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-01-2024, 01:02 AM)samhain Wrote: That's funny.  Most of the remaining party has done nothing but lick Trumps scrotum since 2016.  Oooh.  Now they're super-Trumpy.

Yeah right.  

Not enough people with spines in that party to do anything but lick boots and fall in line.  Absolutely nothing has changed with this verdict.

Really?
Mitch who doesn't like Trump is now backing Trump after the verdict was announced.

[Luvnit2]

(06-01-2024, 01:02 AM)samhain Wrote: That's funny.  Most of the remaining party has done nothing but lick Trumps scrotum since 2016.  Oooh.  Now they're super-Trumpy.

Yeah right.  

Not enough people with spines in that party to do anything but lick boots and fall in line.  Absolutely nothing has changed with this verdict.

Says the guy who supports a brain dead POTUS who has ruined our country. Americans believe in fairness, it is obvious to most the same thing Trump did, HRC did and got. Fine.

NY took at misdemeanor and turned into. Federal felony. But because it is the guy Biden can’t beat on November 5, they attempt to jail him.

Please spare us your holy BS, no conservative or independent is buying it.

[samhain]

(06-01-2024, 01:03 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: The same liberals applauding justice in Trump case are attempting to demean the biggest court in the land.

Liberals show their biased cards against Supreme Court, but dismiss a political prosecution led by a DA who promised before he had a crime he would get Trump, a liberal judge who donated money to Biden and has a daughter who gets major donations for Democrats in a portion of NYC with a jury pool 92% liberal.

Please be consistent, if this is overturned on appeal by lower courts or SC, Trump would not be a felon.

I think you would feel better if you went out and shot some liberals.  If you really love Trump and want to save the country, you'll do it.  If not, you are a traitor.

[samhain]

(06-01-2024, 01:07 AM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Says the guy who supports a brain dead POTUS who has ruined our country. Americans believe in fairness, it is obvious to most the same thing Trump did, HRC did and got. Fine.

NY took at misdemeanor and turned into. Federal felony. But because it is the guy Biden can’t beat on November 5, they attempt to jail him.

Please spare us your holy BS, no conservative or independent is buying it.

Also, have you actually cried about this yet?

[Luvnit2]

I said it months ago, convict Trump in a biased political case and he wins by a landslide.

As I mentioned earlier, Trump went up 6 points after the conviction. They ignited and brought the GOP together.

If judge puts him in jail or stops him from campaigning, Trump wins popular vote in.a landslide.

[Luvnit2]

(06-01-2024, 01:10 AM)samhain Wrote: Also, have you actually cried about this yet?

I loved it. Trump wins do to a political persecution coupled with Biden’s 4 years of failure.

I see lot of liberals crying in November, more than cried in 2016.

I never cried when Trump lost, life goes on.

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-01-2024, 01:05 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: You making Karen's look like nice people

And I'm trying to be nice.

It's inexcusable for the republican party to keep putting the country through this bullshit.

This guy legitimately attempted to over throw the will of the people on top of numerous instances of other scumbag shit in every facet of his life. Why is it hard to comprehend people don't like that and don't want to make him the most powerful man in the country?

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-01-2024, 02:04 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: And I'm trying to be nice.

It's inexcusable for the republican party to keep putting the country through this bullshit.

This guy legitimately attempted to over throw the will of the people on top of numerous instances of other scumbag shit in every facet of his life.  Why is it hard to comprehend people don't like that and don't want to make him the most powerful man in the country?

It is, but right now even Charles Manson would get the vote over Biden, so what does that say about your candidate?

[NATI BENGALS]

(06-01-2024, 02:52 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: It is, but right now even Charles Manson would get the vote over Biden, so what does that say about your candidate?

Yes. Like I said. Republican logic is in shambles. Right wing media has completely decimated the party.

[Arturo Bandini]

(06-01-2024, 02:52 AM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: It is, but right now even Charles Manson would get the vote over Biden, so what does that say about your candidate?

Maybe it tells more about you ... 

[Mike M (the other one)]

(06-01-2024, 03:55 AM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: Maybe it tells more about you ... 

Nah, I can admit they are both crappy choices, but you probably can't.